JK 




Women 



Should 



Vote 




Glass _JLHiafl3- 
Book. &_ 



Copyright lf_ 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



If 






Women 




Should 




Vote- 




BY 




PEGGY PRYDE. 




el 


Trad 


; supplied by the AMERICAN NEWS 
COMPANY and all its branches . 



,0* 



Copyrighted 1910 by 
PEGGY PRYDE. 



Volksfreund Press, Buffalo 

©CLA262921 



If Women Should Vote 



WHAT will suffrage do for women 
collectively and individually? 
Are they in every way compe- 
tent to exercise the privilege of franchise? 

Can they vote and hold office without 
sacrificing the duties and responsibilities 
of home life, wifehood and motherhood? 

Will casting a vote broaden and 
strengthen them mentally, morally and 
physically ? 

Will it make them better women, bet- 
ter wives and better mothers? 

Would they want the ballot if they 
could not hold office? 

Could they purify politics, and, if they 
could, would they? 

Do women need the ballot? 

In securing their so-called rights, 
would they not be deprived of many real 
privileges? 

Would not universal suffrage decrease 
the pay of women workers and eventually 
crowd them out of positions now open 
to them? 

Would not the fact of their having the 
right to vote subject them, to a greater 
extent, to the varied phases of man's so- 
called tyranny? 

If the ignorant masculine vote is so 
detrimental to the best interests of the 
country, will existing conditions be im- 
proved by the addition of an enormously 
ignorant feminine vote? 



How will the ballot benefit women 
who are obliged to be self-supporting? 

There are about nine hundred and 
ninety-nine more questions bearing on 
the subject of "votes for women," but 
these are sufficient to start an argument 
with. 



I have carefully waded through the 
published utterances of those women who 
are demanding the ballot and have sat 
patiently through several conventions 
and meetings held by them, giving close 
attention and much valuable time to all 
that was said in order to learn, if pos- 
sible, just what suffragists want and why 
they want it. 

Being an anti-suffragist, with very de- 
cided opinions and a keen admiration for 
the best type of masculinity known to 
American women, I have been constantly 
humiliated and disgusted by the illogical 
arguments, hysterical outcries against 
man's "tyranny," unwomanly accusations 
and invectives, senseless, baseless de- 
mands for equality in all things, and a 
ceaseless, bitter misrepresentation of 
facts advanced by the suffragists, who 
seem to take a cheap delight in uttering 
deliberate falsehoods with but a single 
purpose — that of causing warfare between 
the sexes. 

Do suffragists want a reversal of sex? 
Do they want to make "squaw men" out 
of our manly men? Do those who are 
clamoring for what they consider their 
"rights" want to redress certain easily 
remedied "wrongs/' or do they want to 
usurp and control all the duties, respon- 



sibilities and rights of the strong, wiser, 
more liberal sex? 

The dominant note in a vast amount of 
discord, mud-slinging and noise is an in- 
sistent demand for power and the right 
to exercise it as each would-be voter sees 
fit. They show no desire whatever to co- 
operate with man, nor any intention of 
recognizing his inalienable right in all 
matters of public or personal interest. 

Indeed, the primary object seems to be 
a deep-seated desire to sweep mere man 
from the face of the earth and make this 
world an Adamless Eden. 

Ambitious, is it not, for a certain set 
of women, temperamentally incapable of 
self-control, to claim superiority in mat- 
ters calling for the very traits of mind 
and character in which they themselves 
are so lamentably deficient? 

Suffragists claim there are a million 
women in the United States who demand 
the ballot. 

Possibly. 

In the year 1900 the women of this 
country — which also includes Alaska and 
Hawaii — numbered 37,244,145. Granting 
that about 30,000,000 are too young, too 
old, too ignorant or too indifferent to 
express any choice, and permitting suf- 
fragists to retain their 1,000,000 ballot- 
seekers, the antis may safely lay claim to 
a little over 4,000,000 sane and safe wom- 
en who have no desire to "hurl aside the 
chains of slavery and beard the tyrant 
on his native soil." 

At present the battle of pro and con 
is being waged solely between women — 
those who are for the ballot, and those 
who are against it. The former are con- 



stantly in evidence, publicity being their 
strong card. The latter are quietly but 
steadily exerting the influence that never 
fails to claim attention and respect from 
men either bad or good— the dignity of 
true womanhood. 

On one side stands an army of tried 
and true wives and mothers, each of 
whom knows her privileges are far great- 
er than her so-called rights; knows that 
the influence she wields at home is far 
greater than any she can exercise at the 
polls; knows she will have all just and 
judicious demands granted at the ask- 
ing; knows thoroughly how fully her 
helpful qualities are recognized and ap- 
preciated by all right-thinking men. 

On the other hand, the component 
parts of the suffrage faction are a few 
female men; rich women with more leis- 
ure and money than brains ; widows who 
were unhappy wives ; bachelor maids and 
old maids who have no knowledge of the 
value of sex interests; divorced women; 
women who are poor wives and worse 
mothers; and a coterie of really earnest, 
dignified women, who, dissatisfied and 
unhappy in themselves, wrongly blame 
their environment. 

And the attitude of each army expresses 
its status. 

The antis are working so daintily and 
quietly as to give the impression that 
they are making no preparations to give 
battle. 

The numerous factions of the suf- 
fragists are torn by internal dissensions, 
breaking off from the main body to re- 
organize independently, having numer- 
ous undignified personal encounters, and 



threatening to dissolve by the well- 
known process inaugurated by the Kil- 
kenny cats — that of eating each other up. 

Let me say in all seriousness, that no 
contented, happy, level-minded woman, 
no woman who realizes the great honor 
bestowed upon her by manly men, is to 
be found in the ranks of those discon- 
tented home-wreckers and man-defamers 
who are so turbulently clamoring for the 
right to be unsexed. 

The woman, married or single, who 
knows herself, her capabilities, her limi- 
tations, fully realizes how necessary to 
her in many ways are the chivalrous 
consideration and protection of man. 

The most independent woman is she 
who realizes that her strongest hold upon 
man is not because of her independence 
of him, but because of her real or fancied 
dependence upon him. 

Dependence does not mean slavery, but 
rather a reliance upon and confidence in 
a greater strength than her own, a 
stronger nature and a better, broader 
judgment than, as a rule, she can exercise. 

The chief aim of the "votes for women" 
adherents seems to be that of causing 
trouble and dissensions between the sexes 
as well as between classes. 

"Give us everything !" they say to men; 
"give us power, control, your manliness, 
your individuality ! We do not need you ! 
We can walk alone and serve where you 
have served since the beginning of time !" 

And what an inglorious muddle they 
would make of matters and things ! How 
quickly would they be compelled to ask 
aid from mere man, whom they so thor- 



oughly despise until they find they can't 
get along without him! 

To proclaim, as suffragists do, that the 
women of this country not only have no 
rights, but also that the law in all its 
phases metes out only injustice to them, 
is a libel upon the laws of the land as well 
as upon the men who make them. 

Indeed, we who do not feel we need the 
ballot, think the shrieking sisterhood of 
would-be voters libels its own sex, as 
well! 

For suffragists to assert that "the wom- 
en of this country demand the right to 
vote and hold office" is both false and 
misleading. 

The minority can never speak for the 
majority. 

The representative women of this coun- 
try, the women who are interested in 
public matters but do not lose sight of 
nor neglect home interests, are not willing 
to have their publicity-seeking sisters 
speak for them, and when the proper 
time arrives they will voice their senti- 
ments in no uncertain tones. In the mean- 
time we will consider and dissect the 
claims of those who want the ballot, and 
their illogical, misleading arguments. 

They are very amusing. 

In every public speech I note frequent 
reference to the falsity of the supposition 
that man is superior to woman. Why 
is that made so prominent? Does it not 
lead one to think suffragists would not 
so incessantly vaunt their superiority if 
they did not feel, deep down in their 
hearts, that they really are inferior, but 
are ashamed to acknowledge it? 



Here is a resume of choice bits culled 
at random from much talking: 

"Votes for women mean social reform 
. . . the woman who thinks for her- 
self, depends on her own judgment, uses 
her own intelligence in deciding what is 
best for her home and her children in- 
stead of accepting blindly the dictates of 
the man who stands at the head of that 
home, is bound to work out her own 
salvation in the larger issues. . . . 
When women have the ballot they must 
be taught how to use it. . . . The 
contempt in which men hold women. 
. . . . It will resolve the question 

of sex against sex Women 

are tired of peaceful methods in their 
fight for suffrage, and sterner measures 
will be employed unless suffrage is forth- 
coming before a great while. . . . 
Women today are used by the political 
parties in a most pernicious way. . . . 
If we make no demand for what is our 
birthright, we are unworthy citizens of 
the commonwealth to which we belong, 
and are content to rank as chattels and 
dependents .... and there is no 
one to help us if we do not help our- 
selves." 

And so on, ad nauseum. 

Most truly has it been said that as 
a rule women are devoid of the sense of 
humor ! 

And anything more illogical, contradic- 
tory and ambiguous than the platform 
adopted at the first "Political Convention 
of Disfranchised Women" — doesn't that 
sound fine? — it has never been permitted 
me to listen to. 



Yet the feminine audience went wild 
over it and ruined many pairs of gloves 
in applauding it. 

(It reminded me of the three little 
tailors of Threadneedle Street, who be- 
gan a petition with, "We, the people of 
Great Britain.") 

That platform was framed by two 
women, one of whom is a lawyer. I won- 
der if either of them realized the huge 
joke that was concealed in the plank that 
proclaimed "Self-government in the home 
and the State is the inalienable right of 
every normal adult" ? 

Dear sisters, how many of us, with our 
varied and complex temperamentality, 
are really "normal*' — "normal" enough to 
be capable of self-restraint and self-gov- 
ernment; "normal" enough to meet with 
balance and poise the simple trials and 
perplexities of daily life; "normal" 
enough to put aside hysterics, fainting 
fits, petty spite and jealousies; "normal" 
enough to conquer or check the little 
failings that sting like gnats and disclose 
the pettiness of our natures? 

The truly normal woman is a master- 
piece; but you won't find more than one 
in five hundred, and none at all, I dare 
assert, in the class that is shrieking, 
"Votes for women" and "Down with the 
tyrant man!" 

Just fancy calling a suffragist "nor- 
mal" ! 

Every well-organized, well-balanced 
woman does rule the home, in conjunc- 
tion with her husband, and she certainly 
has no desire to deprive him of his right- 
ful share in home government. Never 
before in the history of the world has 



woman shared so equally with man the 
responsibilities, duties and rewards of 
life; never before has she been so gener- 
ously recognized and welcomed as man's 
helpful aid and co-worker. 

And this state of affairs was not 
brought about by woman's wielding the 
ballot! 

Though denying man the right to 
share in home rule, would the suffragist 
permit him to pay the bills and eject the 
cook if she should be impertinent? 

Personally, I would translate "self- 
government" to mean governing our- 
selves; our unpleasant traits; trying to 
make ourselves better, wiser, more suit- 
able companions and comrades to our 
best men, and better wives and mothers. 
As I interpret the expression, I am quite 
sure no "normal" man ever did nor ever 
will interfere with woman's "inalienable 
right to self-government," and I am 
equally sure the ballot v/ould never be 
of the slightest help in that branch of 
self-education. 

The lack of self-control, or self-govern- 
ment, as shown by the speech and actions 
of those women who are demanding the 
right to vote is enough to make men 
weep over feminine irresponsibility — or 
take to drink! 

Again the platform: 

"The refusal of this right to women 
(self-government in home and State) 
has resulted in social, legal and economic 
injustice to them, and has also intensified 
the existing economic disturbances 
throughout the world." 

Or, according to the public utterances 
of "Disfranchised Women," all the eco- 



nomic disturbances throughout the world 
are the results of woman's not voting. 
Men won't permit her to vote. There- 
fore, men are the primary cause of all 
the existing evils of the world. 

Which is a direct contradiction to the 
Biblical story of the apple, the serpent 
and the woman. 

But listen to this plank in that wonder- 
ful platform: 

"The ballot is the only legal and per- 
manent means of defending the rights to 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." 

How beautifully, logically, transcend- 
entally simple! 

Give women the ballot, and we will all 
be exquisitely, delightfully, excruciating- 
ly equipped to chase life, liberty and the 
pursuit of happiness all over the place, 
and capture all three, to have and to hold 
forevermore. 

Beautiful! 

But suppose we drop that platform and 
all its planks. It begins to teeter like a 
see-saw. Life is too full of real effort to 
use bubbles for targets. "Disfranchised 
Women" have time to chase rainbows. 
The rest of us have to do real things. 

It is not, however, very difficult to 
describe and define the wants of would- 
be voters. 

Women want the ballot in order to se- 
cure a uniform divorce law. 

Mere man, representing church and 
State, has been trying for years to do that 
very thing, but he finds it to be a great 
problem, and dependent upon time, pa- 
tience and the co-operation of States. 

Women want the ballot so they can 
hold office. 



We will pass that up without com- 
ment; call it another bubble target, and 
let it go at that. 

Women want the ballot in order to 
secure equal pay for women workers. 

Dear ladies, if you have gone as deeply 
into that subject as I have, you surely 
know, as I do, that women are the cause 
— and the sole cause — of the meagre pay 
given women and girls in so many lines 
of work. 

Statistics prove that of the vast num- 
ber of female wage-earners In the United! 
States one-fifth consists of women and 
girls who do not need to work for their 
living. 

And there you have the direct cause of 
self - supporting woman's starvation 
wages ! 

Think the situation over. 

Because twenty girls are working in 
office, store and factory for just money 
enough to pay for theatre tickets, candy 
and extra finery, eighty girls are doing 
the same work for the same pay, not for 
theatre tickets and extra finery, but for 
food, shelter and necessary clothing. 

It is one-fifth man's greed but four- 
fifths woman's cruelty to woman that 
makes it so hard a struggle for the girl 
who is obliged to work or starve or — 
worse. 

"Votes for women" will never right 
this heartless wrong, but a matter so 
trivial is quite unworthy of the serious 
attention of those women who are chas- 
ing life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
ness via the ballot box. 

If women had the right to vote, wom- 
an's lot would be even harder than it is. 



Knowing that, the plain, every-day work- 
ing girl is fighting shy of suffragists and 
their alluring but delusive bait. 

That is why a recent attempt to secure 
the capture of a number of striking shirt- 
waist girls resulted in what may be called 
a "sickening thud." 

One girl, on that occasion, voiced the 
sentiments of hundreds when she said 
she didn't care what the ballot would do 
for her in future years, but she would 
like to know what it would do for her 
now. 

And when she finished speaking, an- 
other girl said to those sitting near : 

"I don't see how women can attend to 
politics without neglecting their homes 
and families, and if they do that there 
will be more divorces than ever. And, 
any way, my young man says he never 
would marry a girl who voted, and I've 
heard lots of fellows say the same thing. 
If voting doesn't increase a girl's pay 
when she needs it, and if it is going to 
make old maids of us girls — no, thank 
you; no votes in mine!" 

Yet, despite facts and plain speaking, 
suffragists say: 

"The women who are opposed to us 
are those who are so well off in every re- 
spect that they have had no experience 
of the actual needs of every-day life"! 

Sounds funny, doesn't it? 

But how that clap-trap oratory must 
get on the nerves of the women who 
work at high pressure and low pay for 
food, shelter and existence ! 

Here is another beautifully worded 
paragraph by the same speaker: 



"It is those who have had to fight the 
battle of life in the open who appreciate 
human wants and learn to know human 
rights." 

Quite true, and from other lips and 
under other conditions the sentiment 
would indeed be noble. 

But let us reflect a little. 

The women who are demanding the 
ballot are, generally speaking, women of 
wealth, fashion and social position. They 
have not the slightest conception of 
human wants or needs or rights. Nor 
do they really care anything about them. 
Their battles in life have been fought in 
pleasant places and in the midst of great 
luxury. Their ideas of life as it really 
is to those who bear its burdens are 
gained from the stage or from books. 
Their utter ignorance of real human 
needs and wants is fully exposed by their 
contention that the ballot in woman's 
hands would cure all ills, remove all 
evils. 

If that were true, I would be willing to 
vote not once, but one hundred times at 
every election. 

"Women w r ant the ballot in order to 
make themselves man's equal in all 
things." 

It simply can't be done. 

There is nothing in human life finer 
than the best and highest type of wom- 
anhood. But, alas! it is so rare! Most 
of us are by no means so wise as we think 
we are, and because we secretly mourn 
our deficiencies, even while we loudly 
proclaim our qualifications for saintship, 
we are bitterly opposed to comparing the 
average woman with the average man. 



The former loses much by the compar- 
ison. Our best types of manhood, God 
bless them, are infinitely superior to us 
in so many ways; and we, who hold the 
man nearest and dearest to us as the 
finest product of civilization, who value 
his care, unselfishness and devotion to 
our interests at their full worth, who 
realize what true manliness is, are not 
going to stand quietly by and hear him 
abused by women who are eager to shirk 
their own duties and responsibilities in 
a mad scramble to usurp man's. 

I would so like to know what the aver- 
age suffragist really thinks of her hus- 
band, and I would so like to know what 
he really thinks of his wife! 

It invariably follows that when a badly- 
balanced woman is opposed, contradicted 
or made to behave herself, she finds sol- 
ace in the thought that she is the victim 
of masculine tyranny. 

It is my private opinion that any wom- 
an who permits a man to continue long 
in a state of tyranny deserves all she 
gets, and if she is so devoid of tact and 
common sense that she cannot convert 
the tyrant's yoke into a daisy chain she 
has so thoroughly double-crossed her- 
self that there's no help for her. 

"Women want the ballot so they can 
secure equal laws for both sexes/' 

Here is where they show their logical 
infirmity. 

It is true the laws as now framed do 
discriminate unjustly, very often, but in- 
variably in favor of women. Let a wom- 
an be taken into court on any charge — 
breach of promise, civil charges, or even 
murder. She may be, generally is, 



guilty; but, as a rule, she gets off with 
slight punishment, or none at all, simply 
because she is a woman. Frequently, 
when her guilt is so plain that even chiv- 
alrous man cannot overlook it, Justice 
herself tightens the bandage over her 
eyes, becomes hysterical because of the 
culprit's sex and begs immunity for her. 

It is mere man who needs a merciful 
and just interpretation of law's vagaries, 
not woman. 

But — all that would be changed if 
women sat on the bench or in the jury 
box ; for then, indeed, would justice, cold, 
pitiless and cruel, be measured out in full 
portion for the woman who had trans- 
gressed. Imagine the fate of a young 
and pretty prisoner if the judge was a 
crabbed old maid and the jury composed 
of discouraged spinsters and divorcees! 

Under present conditions, our male 
'tyrants' frequently give woman the ben- 
fit of the doubt, but a female jury and 
judge would convict and punish her first 
and try her afterwards. 

The most unbiased observer cannot fail 
to see that the wrongs of women are the 
result of woman's inhumanity and injus- 
tice, rather than of man's. 

Let us question woman's view of jus- 
tice: 

Is she just when she scorns and reviles 
the fallen, yet welcomes the tempter, to 
her home and makes much of him? 

Is she just when she sacrifices domes- 
ticity to publicity? 

Is she just when, handsomely gowned, 
giving every evidence of prosperity and 
luxury, she glibly tells half-fed, scantily- 



clad women what the ballot will do for 
them some day in the dim future? 

Is she just when she causes class dis- 
satisfaction and revolt by misrepresenta- 
tion and false promises? 

Is it just to preach one thing and prac- 
tice another? 

Among the women most prominent at 
suffragist meetings and conventions are 
many who, in spite of their publicly pro- 
fessed desire to aid others, are constantly 
practicing dishonesty as well as unkind- 
ness and injustice in their treatment of 
less fortunate women. They employ ca- 
pable but obscure dressmakers and mil- 
liners, paying them contemptibly meagre 
sums for fine work simply because the 
workers are unknown. They avoid pay- 
ing their bills until absolutely compelled 
to. They house their maids in unsani- 
tary, uncomfortable rooms and give them 
insufficient food. They neglect their 
homes, husbands and children in order to 
pose in public as the working woman's 
friend. They are hard and cold and sel- 
fish and heartless, thinking only of their 
own pleasures and pursuits, neglecting 
duties nearest at hand, evading their re- 
sponsibilities. 

I know many such women, and it fills 
me with indignation to see them pose as 
representatives of our real home-makers 
and home-keepers. 

Many of them, because of sheer idle- 
ness and aimlessness, have taken up the 
"votes for women" question as a momen- 
tary fad, but they do quite as much harm 
as if they were sincere, are quite as suc- 
cessful in scattering discord and discon- 



tent broadcast, with no thought nor care 
of the harvest to be garnered later. 

Let us grant, for the sake of argument, 
that women will eventually get the ballot. 

What will be the result? 

A most appalling degeneracy among 
themselves as a sex ; a total abolishment 
of home life ; increased divorces ; constant 
friction or entire disruption of respect and 
courtesy from men ; even heavier burdens 
on the self-supporting woman than she 
bears now; chaos, curses and crimes, 
great and small, in all the relations, in 
every phase of them, that bring the sexes 
in contact. Women will lose dignity 
and refinement the moment they go be- 
yond their sphere. "Woman's sphere" is, 
I know, regarded as something quite too 
obsolete and old-style to be mentioned in 
this progressive age. But it cannot be 
denied that the place in life allotted her 
by conditions, by customs, environment 
— call it what you will — is as plainly 
marked off as a tennis court. 

No matter how narrow the confines 
seem to be, her influence, sent out from 
that restricted circle or plane, is greater 
than it ever could be if she wandered in 
places she should not traverse. 

Very few women can be impartially 
impersonal, and the personal note, not 
necessarily selfish, is sure to predominate 
in all matters calling for feminine choice 
or interest. Their vote would be influ- 
enced solely by personal like or dislike, 
irrespective of fitness of candidate or 
party fealty. 

To cite a case: 

Two Western members of the W. C. T. 
U., at a recent municipal election, voted 



for a saloon keeper. One gave him her 
ballot because he had helped her husband 
in a business matter. The other voted 
for him because she did not like the op- 
posing candidate's wife ! 

A man can and does sink personal 
preference in favor of party and prin- 
ciple. A woman couldn't, and wouldn't. 

Should the ballot be given to the wom- 
en of this country, the two great political 
factions would not be the Republican and 
Democratic parties, but the "Man's 
Party" and the "Woman's Party." 

The average or unnormal woman 
would know very little about political 
conditions and candidates and care less. 
The normal woman would be so interest- 
ed and influenced by her husband's pref- 
erence that she would often lose sight of 
her own election-day rights. 

Under existing conditions, if husbands 
and wives are not congenial enough, not 
chummy enough, to become jointly inter- 
ested in public matters, having the ballot 
as an individual right is not going to de- 
velop a mutual interest in each other's 
actions. 

The assertion that women will purify 
politics has been refuted by two occurr- 
ences of recent date. First, by the atti- 
tude of the suffragist in Brooklyn who 
offered a five-dollar gold piece to the 
schoolgirl who secured the most names 
for membership in a young people's suf- 
frage club. Second, in the fact that one 
of the two suffragist factions had a paid 
lobbyist — and a man, at that — to look 
after suffragist interests in Albany. 

Those of us who know the inner work- 
ings of all the best and most prominent 



clubs composed of women, and have at- 
tended annual meetings, smile broadly 
when we recall the strenuous times at- 
tendant upon such gatherings. Bribery, 
face-slappings, destruction of hats, plead- 
ings, promises, tears and threats — all be- 
cause of a most undignified scramble for 
office and power. 

Any man who truly believes women 
should vote would promptly change his 
mind if he ever once attended a woman's 
club election. Ward primaries are "little 
mothers' meetings" by comparison! 

I doubt if there is a solitary woman's 
club of any standing that would dare per- 
mit a male reporter to be present when 
there v/as to be a nomination or election 
of officers. 

And the poor, bewildered dove of peace 
would find no rest for its feet in a house- 
hold where father, mother and several 
sons and daughters each favored a differ- 
ent candidate. 

Picture the "joy and serenity" of the 
home where each individual member ex- 
ercised his and her inalienable right to 
electioneer for his or her "man" ! 

Think of the ante-election debates, con- 
troversies and recriminations regarding 
the merits and demerits of each candi- 
date! 

In homes of education and refinement, 
political discussions would doubtless be 
limited to bitter words and angry tears; 
but in uncultured circles, where Patrick 
enforced his views with a chair, and 
Bridget gently but firmly endeavored to 
change them by a counter-charge of 
broomstick or coal shovel, election day 
would have so many side issues that the 



original object would be lost in the 
shuffle. 

Quite recently I asked a well-known 
suffragist how she would like to have 
her two daughters select other candidates 
than those she favored. 

The amazement was too genuine and 
extreme to be amusing. 

"Why, my dear, 1 ' she answered, re- 
provingly, "the girls would always vote 
as I advised!" 

So, if women should vote, the problem 
of tyranny will merely be one of sex! 

There are three excellent reasons why 
women should not have the ballot. 

First. They do not need it. 

Second. They would not use the pow- 
er properly if they had it. 

Third. Giving it to them means the de- 
struction of home life, home influences 
and conjugal companionship; an increase 
of divorces and a decrease of marriages; 
race suicide, and a terrible neglect of 
maternal duties and responsibilities, and 
a total and entire elimination of man's 
chivalry and consideration. 

The love of home, the desire for it in- 
herent in almost every man's nature, 
finds its inspiration in woman. Her wom- 
anliness is her greatest charm. Men do 
not fear her as a rival, but they do object 
to her lowering her standard as a woman 
in order to usurp masculine duties and 
privileges. 

There is absolutely nothing to gain for 
the betterment of either sex by giving 
women the right to vote and hold office. 

There is everything to lose should they 
be given that right. 



Because men are far-seeing, more ob- 
servant, more logical, they realize what a 
terribly mischievous weapon in the hands 
of woman the ballot would be. They 
know to what lengths temperamental de- 
ficiences will carry her. They can see 
clearly the dangers of "equal rights" in 
irresponsible hands. 

Man's knowledge of woman's limita- 
tions, his profound respect for her wom- 
anliness, his perfect willingness to grant 
and acknowledge equality of the sexes 
wherever it is a moral, physical and tem- 
peramental possibility — all these he will 
interpose as a barrier to shield her from 
her weakness, her follies and herself. 

Despite all declaration to the contrary, 
woman's so-called "tyrant" is her earthly 
salvation. 

And deep in her heart she knows it. 
PEGGY PRYDE. 







LIBRARY OF CONGRESS # 

029 809 774 6 



